The Democrats have not made sexuala assault allegations. Women have. Do you understand the difference?
Why didn't the Democrats club Gorsuch with sexual assault allegations if this is all political retribution?
And Duchen I wish the Democrats would just admit that they don't give a shit about Blacks, Hispanics or Muslims outside of getting their vote during election time. How many black churches has Hilary Clinton been to since her defeat again? Funny how Democrats only make their way to black churches when they are up for re-election.
Which were requested to be kept anonymous... Until Feinstein violated those wishes and brought them to the committee at the 11th hour... But we're not allowed to talk about her...
And of course it just happens to come out now right? And with the timing of it and the fact that witnesses have already refuted it I think it's understandable that most people with common sense see right through it. I don't believe any of these women.
Still waiting for your response, 715. Gorsuch took Garland's seat. Why didn't the Democrats "club" him with sexual assault allegations? Why pick Kavanaugh?
And there shouldn't be unless these "victims" have some witnesses to corroborate. We all know the liberal strategy duchen. We'll investigate this one, then another will come up, investigate that one, then another will come up, and so on and so on. Kavannaugh would never get confirmed because the "investigation" would never end. It's completely transparent.
Nice deflection. There are “good people on both sides,” but that really belongs in another thread. Remember when Trump said that about the Neo Nazi march in Charlottesville. Did you hear all of those good folks chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and Soil.” Own it. Spare us the sanctimony about what the right embraces. That is why the large segment of it embraces Trump and is so willing to embrace Kavanaugh.
Did McConnell say they wanted to hold Garland up so they could steal a seat? As for clubbing republicans over sex assault allegations, what to make of the current president having done brung four accusers of a past president to have a press conference before a debate against that past president's wife. Thing is, there are a lot of guilty men who have "gotten away with it" and that they don't want others to see since that would blow the doors off of carefully cultivated facades...and well...I'm not sure Kavanaugh is as squeaky clean as presented. But I don't know. And while I share in the disgust over politics (don't have a stomach for it), it doesn't seem anything worse than what we've seen before, including said incident involving the current president.
Plenty of good choices who have already been confirmed to Circuit Court seats under Trump. Nominate James Ho, or Don Willett, or Amy Coney-Barrett, or Amul Thapar, and bring them straight to the floor. Dems want to block a moderate conservative, give them a dyed in the wool movement conservative in return.
You just floated the theory that this is a political hit for not giving Garland a chance. Your theory doesn't make sense because Gorsuch took that seat. Nobody accused Gorsuch of sexual assault. If the Dems' strategy was to just accuse men nominated by Republicans of sexual assault, why didn't Gorsuch get accused? Could it be because Gorsuch didn't do it and Kavanaugh did?
I'm not the one who brought up Garland... I simply said, if this is about Garland, Democrats should just say so...
